Apparently Shorty you have not read your Hirsch. None of your mitigation schemes could possibly be effective in the time frame required. Conservation (volt still uses gasoline) and replacement (ng) strategies would require too much work done, prior to peak. That has not happened. From the Hirsch Report:

* Initiating a mitigation crash program 10 years before world oil peaking helps considerably but still leaves a liquid fuels shortfall roughly a decade after the time that oil would have peaked.

* Initiating a mitigation crash program 20 years before peaking appears to offer the possibility of avoiding a world liquid fuels shortfall for the forecast period.

How you expect the entire transportation infrastructure to be revamped (natural gas/electric transmission supply lines along major highways) during the post-peak financial crisis is beyond me.

Before you smear the report and the author, understand that the report was commissioned by US Department of Energy and that Hirsch himself was Director of fusion research at the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, and Manager of Petroleum Exploratory Research at Exxon.

Have fun, Shorty? See if you can dig up some irrelevant dirt This should be fun!

mos6507 wrote:If we're just delivering a death sentence then there is little to be gained in telling people.

What death sentence? Everything will be fine, our civilization is collapse-proof, apparently.

There's a difference between economic collapse and civilizational collapse. The latter is the dieoff hypothesis, which I reject.

What you're about to find out is that there is no difference between the two.

If you have no economy you have no civilization.

LATOC wrote:The issue is not one of "running out" so much as it is not having enough to keep our economy running. In this regard, the ramifications of Peak Oil for our civilization are similar to the ramifications of dehydration for the human body. The human body is 70 percent water. The body of a 200 pound man thus holds 140 pounds of water. Because water is so crucial to everything the human body does, the man doesn't need to lose all 140 pounds of water weight before collapsing due to dehydration. A loss of as little as 10-15 pounds of water may be enough to kill him.

In a similar sense, an oil based economy such as ours doesn't need to deplete its entire reserve of oil before it begins to collapse. A shortfall between demand and supply as little as 10 to 15 percent is enough to wholly shatter an oil-dependent economy and reduce its citizenry to poverty.

* e-mail this story * print this story * digg this * save to del.icio.us * add to Business Exchange

(Adds Ku-Maloob-Zaap and Cantarell’s production in fourth paragraph.)

By Carlos Manuel Rodriguez

April 8 (Bloomberg) -- Petroleos Mexicanos’s crude production fell 2 percent last month, matching the smallest decline rate in more than two years in February as Latin America’s largest oil producer seeks to arrest slumping output.

Output at Pemex, as the company is known, dropped to 2.599 million barrels a day from 2.652 million barrels in the year- earlier period, Mexico’s National Hydrocarbons Commission said on its Web site in a report dated April 4.

WestTexas wrote: As Pitt pointed out, the ELM basically asks a hypothetical question for a hypothetical country (consuming 50% of production at peak production): What happens to net oil exports if production declines at 5% and consumption increases at 2.5%?

The answer is that net exports go to zero in 9 years, and only about 10% of remaining production would be exported. In any case, I suggest that you check out the ELM versus real data in Mexico post that Kkebab did. Also, the UK went from peak exports to zero exports in about six years.

In regard to economics, my premise is, and was, that once net exports started declining, oil prices would rise, generating increasing income for the exporters, even as their net exports fall. This would tend to have the effect, in short term at least, of increasing domestic demand in exporting countries. This is precisely what we saw in 2006. For example, the top five showed a 1.3% decline in production, a 5.5% increase in consumption and a 3.3% reduction in net exports (EIA, Total Liquids from 2005 to 2006).

IMO, almost everyone (Matt Simmons being a notable exception) in the Peak Oil community has been focused on the wrong thing--total production--when what counts is net exports.

Does this mean the Mexican state is finished? The current crack-down by the Mexican military and federal police is, I think, best seen as a last-ditch effort to save the state. But it is also evidence that, by the very existence of this pitched battle, the state retains enough viability to pose a threat, and therefore to be targeted.

In military theory, pitched battles are only consciously joined by both sides when both have an incentive to risk the main body of their force—-either because they think they can win a decisive victory or because they are running out of the political, logistical, or economic ability to sustain their army in the field and must seek a decisive action while they can.

Clearly the drug cartels smell blood—-and tactics like forcing the resignation of the Juarez police chief by killing one or more police officers every 48 hours demonstrate their desire for a decisive engagement. Additionally, the motivation behind a recent truce among rival drug cartels may be to facilitate a joint offensive against the government.

In my opinion, the Mexican government is seeking a pitched battle for the second reason—with their oil hedges only in place through 2009, and with oil production, remittance income, and tourism dollars poised to continue a sharp decline, the state may not have much more than a year of financial viability in which to cripple the drug cartels.

Out of curiosity mcgowan, what does any of this have to do with the credibility of peak oil? Certainly what Jeff said had nothing to do with the topic...do you have any of your OWN thoughts on the topic?

shortonsense wrote:This topic comes about because of a recent exchange between AirlinePilot and I, the results of which were apparently 2 different polls to try and determine the mix of UberDoomer,Peaker,Cornocopian,Utopianite.

The summary of that conversion is as follows:

Short: Peak Oil is associated with crackpots and therefore loses credibilityAirline: We aren't all Doomers, stop characterizing us at this website that wayShort: Have you taken a pollAirline: Poll appears.

The underlying comments which generated this exchange relate to the following, I submit that peak oil "gets no respect" because it associated with the likes of nutjobs and crackpots who use it to their own ends. Website subscription and book sales, honorariums or solar ovens, it just doesn't matter, the game is BAU in the form of internet sales, and peak oil fear mongering is simply the means to an end. There is also the individuals on the forums, pushing the nonstop 9/11 trivia, the faked moon landings, the real moon landings which found aliens instead (yes, I have references for these as well), massive starvation in America, you name it, it becomes connected to peak oil through proximity, and what might be limited to a single giggle from a curious passer by becomes hysterical laughter in short order. And presto...peak oil credibility goes right out the window.

I advocate that if peak oil could disassociate itself from such nonsense, it might be taken more seriously. General public familiarity with even a small component of the resource depletion issue, without the related crackpottery, is a good thing. People who are better aware of a credible and serious issue are more likely to be receptive to proposed solutions and such.

Feel free to advocate a position on the topic, but can we please refrain from allowing the conversation to degenerate into the normal pro/con positions papers as various advocacy groups defend their pet theories.

I found this thread with a nice intro and thought...HOLY CRAP!!!! Perma Banned Indeed!!! Anyone who actually dared venture this close to some of the core issues must have caused quite a stir in the pre "we told you so" world!

I can't wait to start working through this thread to see who knew what, when, that must have come up during this topic discussion!

Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0

pstarr wrote:Apparently Shorty you have not read your Hirsch. None of your mitigation schemes could possibly be effective in the time frame required. Conservation (volt still uses gasoline) and replacement (ng) strategies would require too much work done, prior to peak. That has not happened. From the Hirsch Report:

* Initiating a mitigation crash program 10 years before world oil peaking helps considerably but still leaves a liquid fuels shortfall roughly a decade after the time that oil would have peaked.

* Initiating a mitigation crash program 20 years before peaking appears to offer the possibility of avoiding a world liquid fuels shortfall for the forecast period.

How you expect the entire transportation infrastructure to be revamped (natural gas/electric transmission supply lines along major highways) during the post-peak financial crisis is beyond me.

Before you smear the report and the author, understand that the report was commissioned by US Department of Energy and that Hirsch himself was Director of fusion research at the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, and Manager of Petroleum Exploratory Research at Exxon.

Have fun, Shorty? See if you can dig up some irrelevant dirt This should be fun!

So do you still hold a high opinion of Bob there pstarr? Turns out, he was REALLY wrong, and as you do with anything built into your dogma, you FELL for it! But the real question is, do you understand now why he was wrong?

Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0

AdamB, to add my two cents (probably about 13 with inflation), there are a lot of conspiracy theorists who believe in peak oil, but they are a fringe group. However, the fact that some central figures (such as Campbell) will claim many groups are dishonest in not believing in peak oil doesn't help. What probably hurts the credulity of those like Hirsh is that they cherry-pick data and citations, avoid any contrary arguments, and don't hesitate to claim a high degree of certainty about a very complex subject. Lynch

AdamB wrote:So do you still hold a high opinion of Bob there pstarr? Turns out, he was REALLY wrong, and as you do with anything built into your dogma, you FELL for it! But the real question is, do you understand now why he was wrong?

I haven't seen him post in weeks. Either he too has been perma-banned or he's medically incapacitated himself to the point where his fingers don't work anymore because I can't imagine he'd voluntarily quit this forum.

As Cal Ripken taught us, all streaks come to an end.

“If and when the oil price skewers for 6 months or more substantially above the MAP, then I will concede the Etp is inherently flawed"--Onlooker, 1/1/2018

AdamThe "why" he was wrong holds important lessons for any open minded seeker of truth.The posters on this site who staunchly posses predetermined positions - more ideologically motivated than factual - are disinclined to study the waywardness of yesteryear's claims.

Clearly, you already recognize this.For any and all who continue to visit/post to this fine site and seize the opportunity to learn of possible eventualities in the hydrocarbon world, welcome aboard.Much appreciation extended to those who administer Peak oil.com.

coffeeguyzz wrote:AdamThe "why" he was wrong holds important lessons for any open minded seeker of truth.The posters on this site who staunchly posses predetermined positions - more ideologically motivated than factual - are disinclined to study the waywardness of yesteryear's claims.

?????

Do you really not understand why oil production hasn't already peaked?

Its really not hard to understand. In fact----I can explain it to you in just two sentences. Now pay attention and see if you can understand.....

1. Beginning the mid-2000s, drillers in the US utilized techniques like horizontal drilling and high pressure hydrofracturing to successfully tap large quantities of oil from oil shales, starting in the Bakken and then spreading to other US tight oil shale deposits.

OK---did you understand that? If so, lets go on to the second sentence:

2. The new production from US TOS caused global oil production to continue to slowly grow, even as growth in conventional oil production topped out and began to decline.

Get it now?

LOOK! Oil production from US tight Oil shale is the reason global oil production hasn't already peaked.

Glad to see you assume Pisstarr's position as arrogant Know Nothing ... with charts.Shame, back in the day I thought you were knowledgeable in this field and could contribute to the wider pursuit of wisdom.

coffeeguyzz wrote:AdamThe "why" he was wrong holds important lessons for any open minded seeker of truth.The posters on this site who staunchly posses predetermined positions - more ideologically motivated than factual - are disinclined to study the waywardness of yesteryear's claims.

?????

Do you really not understand why oil production hasn't already peaked?

Its really not hard to understand. In fact----I can explain it to you in just two sentences. Now pay attention and see if you can understand.....

1. Beginning the mid-2000s, drillers in the US utilized techniques like horizontal drilling and high pressure hydrofracturing to successfully tap large quantities of oil from oil shales, starting in the Bakken and then spreading to other US tight oil shale deposits.

OK---did you understand that? If so, lets go on to the second sentence:

2. The new production from US TOS caused global oil production to continue to slowly grow, even as growth in conventional oil production topped out and began to decline.

Get it now?

LOOK! Oil production from US tight Oil shale is the reason global oil production hasn't already peaked.

Cheers!

An over simplification. It leaves out the vast reserves of Saudi Arabia , Kuwait, Iraq and Iran that found out decades ago that producing as fast as they could drove prices down not to their benefit. They have throttled back production (most of the time) to keep prices up to a profitable level for them and to save some of their oil for "Future generations". The exact amount of those reserves is a closely guarded secret and estimates of how much KSA has left vary from a year or two to decades. Until one or more of these mega producers comes to a point where they can't increase production when they want to we will not see a real peak oil. Throw Russia into the equation and it becomes even more difficult to estimate oil supply more then a few months out. No amount of shale oil drilling could ever make up for a shortfall from the middle east.

Peak oil is not a theory or a conspiracy for painfully obvious reasons. For me, anyone who thinks otherwise should not be banned but allowed to post only in certain sections of this forum, and should not be allowed to create threads.